Richard Posner: Interpreting the Law
Richard Posner is an influential legal theorist and author and currently a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Posner attended Yale as an undergraduate, and was first in his class at Harvard Law School. Following his graduation from Harvard, Posner clerked for Justice William J. Brennan Jr.; he later worked as assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States. In 1969, Posner began teaching at the University of Chicago Law School, where he remains a Senior Lecturer to this day. In 1981, Posner was appointed to Seventh Circuit's Court of Appeals. Posner helped found the law and economics movement, which argues that the primary goal of law should be outcomes that are economically sensible and efficient rather than "just." Known for his eclectic mix of beliefs, Posner can't be pigeonholed as a liberal or a conservative: he has written that marijuana should be legalized and also that there are times when "torture should be used." Posner was the founding editor of the Journal of Legal Studies and (with Orley Ashenfelter) the American Law and Economics Review. Posner is the author of dozens of books, including Public Intellectuals, and The Problems of Jurisprudence, and How Judges Think, which was published in April 2008. His next book A Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of '08 and the Descent into Depression will be released May 2009.
Question: Does personal experience shape your approach to the law?
Richard Posner: Well I think very substantially. This is the fun of it actually. American law is extremely uncertain. And now the majority, even, given that the majority of cases are cut and dried if you look across the whole American system with their millions of cases filed every year. And most of them have no merit, or some have obvious merit. But when you’re talking about a federal appeals court, a significant fraction of the cases that come to us arise in unsettled areas, or the facts are very uncertain. When you get to the Supreme Court, the percentage of really indeterminate cases are really much higher. But at our level it’s high. It is significant.
There are two kinds of uncertainties. Statisticians make a distinction between risk and uncertainty. Risk is where there’s uncertainty, there’s a lack of certainty, but some probability can be assigned to the risk. So you can deal with it. Uncertainty in the way some statisticians use the term means there’s no probability that can be assigned to this risk, but you still have to deal with it.
So an example would be suppose you’re deciding whether to get married. You can actually assign a risk of divorce. You can look at the statistics on divorce and say, you know, 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. But you don’t know the probability of your marriage ending in divorce, right? So that’s uncertain. You still have to make a choice, but you couldn’t assign a probability. You couldn’t do a cost-benefit analysis. Well that’s the position we’re in much of the time, and those are the interesting cases. And if you think of the marriage choice, what is going to determine your decision is going to be highly personal to you. And that’s true with the judges.
So your ideology, your temperament, your response, your experience. You may have been a defense lawyer – a criminal defense lawyer. That’s giving you some perspective. If you’ve been a prosecutor, that’s giving you another perspective. Academic, something else. If you have what’s called an “authoritarian” personality, you’re going to be conservative, and you’re probably going to be very rule oriented. You’re going to set a very high value of “definiteness”. And if you’re the opposite personality, not. And as I mentioned Justice Breyer, he doesn’t like rules. He likes very general standards. And some of his colleagues are the opposite, like Justice Scalia. He really likes rules. He doesn’t like standards. And that, I think, is the temperamental difference. Temperament being shaped by biological factors, but also by upbringing, experience, the times in which you grew up.
One of the things I know shaped my own ideological development is I reacted very negatively to the riots and protests in the Vietnam period. I really dislike that stuff. And I think that had an effect.
Now of course other people reacted the opposite. They thought this was terrific. You know they’re nostalgic for it.
So the same experiences can have different effects on people depending on I think, you know, deep psychological factors which are _________ biological.
But as a I say, whenever you have people who are making decisions that are not . . . cannot be made in a kind of an algorithmic way in applying a formula.
And to an economist, the epitome of algorithmic decision making is cost benefit analysis. And it would be nice if in a case we could say that we decide one way, there’s some probability of the following measurable adverse consequences in future cases as a result of adopting this rule. But you rarely can do it. In a larger number of cases, you can’t do a statistical analysis, but you know that the adverse consequences of one choice greatly outweigh that of the other. But then as I say, there’s a large number of cases where you simply do not know. And so your personal characteristics then shape your decision.
Recorded on: Nov 21, 2007
Judge Posner talks about the uncertainty of American law and why this means that Judges can't always makes cost-benefit analysis. He goes on to talk about his ideological development and reacting negatively to the Vietnam protests.
Swiss researchers identify new dangers of modern cocaine.
- Cocaine cut with anti-worming adulterant levamisole may cause brain damage.
- Levamisole can thin out the prefrontal cortex and affect cognitive skills.
- Government health programs should encourage testing of cocaine for purity.
Pfizer's partnerships strengthen their ability to deliver vaccines in developing countries.
- Pfizer is helping to drive the UN's sustainable development goals through partnerships.
Civil discourse has fallen to an all time low.
The question that the American populace needs to ask itself now is: how do we fix it?
Discursive fundamentals need to be taught to preserve free expression
In their findings the authors state:
upholding First Amendment ideals.
Talking politics at Thanksgiving dinner
- Progressive Activists: younger, highly engaged, secular, cosmopolitan, angry.
- Traditional Liberals: older, retired, open to compromise, rational, cautious.
- Passive Liberals: unhappy, insecure, distrustful, disillusioned.
- Politically Disengaged: young, low income, distrustful, detached, patriotic, conspiratorial
- Moderates: engaged, civic-minded, middle-of-the-road, pessimistic, Protestant.
- Traditional Conservatives: religious, middle class, patriotic, moralistic.
- Devoted Conservatives: white, retired, highly engaged, uncompromising,
It's interesting to note the authors found that:
"Tribe membership shows strong reliability in predicting views across different political topics."
Here are some statistics on differing viewpoints according to political party:
- 51% of staunch liberals say it's "morally acceptable" to punch Nazis.
- 53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.
- 65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the anthem.
- 58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.
- 47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques.
Here are some guidelines for civic discourse that might come in handy:
- Practice inclusion and listen to who you're speaking to.
Civic discourse in the divisive age
dangerously tribal, fueled by a culture of outrage and taking offense. For the combatants,
the other side can no longer be tolerated, and no price is too high to defeat them.
These tensions are poisoning personal relationships, consuming our politics and
putting our democracy in peril.
Once a country has become tribalized, debates about contested issues from
immigration and trade to economic management, climate change and national security,
become shaped by larger tribal identities. Policy debate gives way to tribal conflicts.
Polarization and tribalism are self-reinforcing and will likely continue to accelerate.
The work of rebuilding our fragmented society needs to start now. It extends from
re-connecting people across the lines of division in local communities all the way to
building a renewed sense of national identity: a bigger story of us."
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.